Re: E + MinorFs + AppArmor: adding Tahoe to the stack ?

Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> [...] In short, users are rational and correct when they
> pass over the products with "security" in favor of the products with
> "get your job done today".

For most existing security products, I agree completely.

> Now we have always tried with Tahoe-LAFS to make something which
> provides security *without* introducing lots of hassle.  I think we've
> at least partially succeeded (although I'm still alert for more
> evidence from the field to indicate what's working and what isn't).
> So maybe we should find some way to appeal to those people who just
> want a reliable and easy-to-use cloud storage tool and don't want an
> extra helping of "security".

Except that Tahoe *does* sell itself primarily on security, and is making
a fair success of that.

In other words, it's not claiming to provide security that's the problem.
It's claiming to provide security when you manifestly don't -- a claim of
which there are far too many examples.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

_______________________________________________
e-lang mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAktijAYACgkQWUc8YzyzqAfc+QEAkkuHBw1ZOyG6qRf50a/RZ8S+
eJsFXImJJUm6au6F6tMA/jaCDbQyJlqkl1dVjMnOHTi10sVFUmML3mO+6G6ZTasP
=0fOU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----